19 S.W. 813 (Mo. 1892), Woods v. Campbell

Citation:19 S.W. 813, 110 Mo. 572
Opinion Judge:Brace, J.
Party Name:Woods et al. v. Campbell et al., Appellants
Attorney:G. D. Reynolds for appellants. J. B. Dennis for respondents.
Case Date:June 06, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 813

19 S.W. 813 (Mo. 1892)

110 Mo. 572

Woods et al.

v.

Campbell et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 6, 1892

Appeal from Cape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas. Hon. Maurice Cramer, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

G. D. Reynolds for appellants.

J. B. Dennis for respondents.

OPINION

In Banc.

Brace, J.

This is an action for damages against the defendants for intruding upon the line of an exclusive ferry franchise claimed to have been granted to plaintiff, Richard Carroll, by the city of Cape Girardeau, by ordinance number 411 of said city; and is the same franchise passed upon in Carroll v. Campbell, 108 Mo. 550, 17 S.W. 884, and in same v. same, ante, p. 557. The issues in the latter case and in the one in hand are precisely the same, except that in the former the damage claimed was for an intrusion between the twentieth of December, 1885, and the seventeenth of May, 1886, and the present is for an intrusion between the eighteenth day of October, 1886, and the third day of May, 1887. The same legal questions are raised in this, as in the former case, and are there disposed of. In this opinion it will only be necessary to notice one additional point arising from the difference in the time charged for.

To sustain the issue upon the part of plaintiffs, two licenses to Richard Carroll were introduced, issued [110 Mo. 573] under said special ordinance granting the ferry privilege to him, one dated September 14, 1885, and one dated March 15, 1886, each for the period of six months from the date thereof, and neither covering the time sued for. No other license was offered or introduced in evidence; but over the objections of the defendant, and without amendment of the petition, the plaintiffs were permitted to introduce a general ferry ordinance of the city authorizing the grant of ferry licenses by the mayor and council by special ordinance, and parol evidence tending to prove that, during the time sued for, the plaintiffs had ferry licenses issued to Woods and Carroll, one signed by the city marshal and one by the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP